Re: Lilypond lobbying?

[David Kastrup]

"Dmytro O. Redchuk" <address@hidden> writes:

> On Fri 26 Aug 2011, 13:54 David Kastrup wrote:
>> So maybe the "spacer rest" terminology is not doing anybody a favor.
>> 
>> Would you have felt more comfortable if my example had used "\skip"
>> instead of "spacer rests"?
> No, not sure. Why "music" should contain any "skips" to be "typeset" nicely?

If the textual description is "wait for the second beat, then start the
crescendo", then I consider it natural to wait for the second beat, then
start the crescendo.

> Well, really, excuse me :-)
>
> I wanted to say, that, very probably, "\<{...}" would be really great
> (to shift starting point right). And that spacers are, as for me, a
> bit "innatural".

The problem is that if you need to fine-structure a long note into
several dynamic and other events, spelling out that fine structure as
parallel music with the long note is a natural and working idiom.

Requiring special properties and syntax for what amounts to every markup
and/or spanner and/or post-event might look like a good idea if you just
do it for one such thing.  But if you have to implement something like
that for every such thing, this gets really tiresome to learn and use.

Juggling with *x/y scales (like the rather distasteful s1*0 one has to
use often) is rather artificial to me, since you more or less need to
hand-calculate fractions to add up.

Parallel music, in contrast, is a natural tool where you specify the
natural durations.  There are no complex interactions and repercussions.
If people feel queasy about using a straightforward simple tool, we need
to fix the queasiness rather than the tool.

-- 
David Kastrup